Is combined robotically assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction a good solution for the young arthritic knee?

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiency can be a consequence or a cause of femoro-tibial osteoarthritis (OA). Several studies have published satisfactory outcomes of unicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and combined ACL reconstruction despite its absence classically being considered a contraindication. A major challenge in the ACL deficient knee is obtaining appropriate gap balancing and limb axis. Robotically assisted UKA allows for precise control of these factors; however, it's utilisation as a tool with combined ACL reconstruction and UKA has not been described. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of robotically assisted UKA with combined ACL reconstruction. METHODS: This was a retrospective single-centre study of ten patients operated by a single surgeon from 2016 to 2020. All surgery was performed using a cemented fixed bearing UKA prosthesis (Journey uni, Smith and Nephew®) (8 medial, 2 lateral) inserted with the assistance of an image-free robotic-assisted system (BlueBelt, Navio, Smith and Nephew®). All ACL reconstructions were performed using hamstring autograft. Clinical assessment included International Knee Score (IKS) score, Tegner score and patient satisfaction. Radiological assessment was performed to assess radiolucent lines, progression of OA in the other compartments, Hip-Knee-Ankle angle and Posterior Tibial Slope. RESULTS: There were eight females (80%), mean age was 57 ± 7 [48-70], mean BMI was 26 ± 3 [22-31]. The mean follow-up was 45 months ± 13 months [24-66]. Mean post-operative IKS knee and function score were respectively 96 ± 4.5 [88-100] and 93 ± 8.2 [74-100], mean Tegner score was 4.5 ± 1.4 [3-6]. Nine patients (90%) returned to sport; one patient (10%) was dissatisfied because of residual pain preventing a return to a desired level of sport. 100% of the radiological objectives were achieved. No radiolucent lines were seen at the last follow-up. There were two re-operations (20%) for stiffness requiring arthroscopic arthrolysis at two and three months respectively following surgery, with full recovery of the flexion at the last follow-up in both cases. No other complications were observed. CONCLUSION: Robotic UKA associated with ACL reconstruction provides satisfactory early patient outcomes and accurate implant positioning. The first results in terms of return to sports were promising.